Realism Invictus

Well I tried changing the WhiteFlag from 0 to 1 for the Barbarian player, but that did not work. It seems that whenever cities are conquered, they are automatically razed to the ground with no option to administer it for yourself... This is also the case when conquering cities belonging to other players, not just barbarians. So I don't know if "WhiteFlag=X" means what I had thought it meant. If anyone knows or can figure out what is wrong that would be of great help.

I went ahead and added amber where it has historically been found, and plenty more prime timber. I also gave every barbarian city walls, tribal barracks, and a castle (I couldn't find anything called tribal fort). And I fixed the "lose after losing one city" issue. So the only remaining problem is the one mentioned above (balancing issues notwithstanding). Here is the updated file:

Hey Nirv4n4,

Glad to see you managed to solve this problem.

I am sorry, I forgot to mention that Tribal Forts are units. You can find them in "Archery Units" I think. They are pretty strong in early stages, making the taking of barbarian cities challenging early on (especially barbarian cities with more than one fort). Well at least until middle age.

The whiteFlag thing sounded like a good clue. Maybe I can search on existing RI scenario if there are some noticeable differences or parameters.

Thank you for the re-upload. It looks like it is already much more playable. I will restart some games and keep you informed if I find something.

Best regards,

Bk
 
I will attempt to find a solution to the city razing and immediate game loss problem. That may have been the reason why I noticed that half the civs were gone 100 turns in.

I had myself a funny surprise when landing in Norway, building a cool little city and being immediatly attacked by Norsks and Turks (!), losing my outpost and being whiped out while I still had a huge empire behind ^^'
 
Hey Nirv4n4,

Glad to see you managed to solve this problem.

I am sorry, I forgot to mention that Tribal Forts are units. You can find them in "Archery Units" I think. They are pretty strong in early stages, making the taking of barbarian cities challenging early on (especially barbarian cities with more than one fort). Well at least until middle age.

The whiteFlag thing sounded like a good clue. Maybe I can search on existing RI scenario if there are some noticeable differences or parameters.

Thank you for the re-upload. It looks like it is already much more playable. I will restart some games and keep you informed if I find something.

Best regards,

Bk
Sounds good, I will put those tribal forts in soon and wait for any update you might have on the raze city problem. I'll do some checking myself. It is good to have someone helping me out with this process, thanks!
 
Here is the updated file:
Sounds good, I will put those tribal forts in soon and wait for any update you might have on the raze city problem. I'll do some checking myself. It is good to have someone helping me out with this process, thanks!

Actually, the changes you made seemed to be kinda successful. I played with the "no city razing rule" and it seems to be working as intended (yet not completly satisfying if you ask me).

I noticed the use of WhiteFlag and MaxCityElimination. I will try some combination and keep you informed.

Also, what do you think about tribal villages ? It could make exploring more rewarding, but it is a pain to spread them....

Honestly, you are pulling much more work than I do, so you are welcome but all I do is playing, actually :D
 
I noticed that once IFVs are unlocked, Paramilitary Forces (last of the irregulars line) and Modern Infantry (last standard/defensive infantry before IFVs) can't be made, or even upgraded to. (I made the unfortunate mistake of getting Globalization very late, so now all my old Conscripts can only be upgraded to the very expensive IFVs and highly specialized Anti-Tank Infantry.) This seems weird since IFVs and Modern Infantry are both unlocked at the same time. As for the Paramilitary Forces, the lack of an irregulars unit means there are no cheap units once you reach the very end of the tech tree. The "draft" button in the city screen is disabled with no tooltip because of this. Are these things intentional?
 
I think the issue with the razing of barbarian cities is because the "WhiteFlag=X" option for the barbarian civ info (Player 62) is set to 0, not 1. I had no idea what "WhiteFlag" meant but I assume it allows the option of surrendering cities vs fighting til it's burnt to the ground. As for the immediate loss of game upon losing one city, that is probably due to the MaxCityElimination being = to 1, meaning the maximum number of cities that can be lost to any civ is 1... I guess I could just set that number to 100 or something to make it so civs can generally last until they lose their final city. I am currently running a playtest on regular Civ4 BTS for my Europe map, once that is done, I will go through and add those special resources/tribal forts. I will post the updated file in a few hours. Thanks again for playtesting!

WhiteFlag definitely has nothing to do with it, as it just regulates how actual flag of the civ is displayed. As for razing stuff, just put MaxCityElimination=0 and that should solve it (my guess at least). You don't seem to be using city elimination as an actual scenario mechanic, so why keep it on?

Hey, could you add in a custom game option to re-enable alliances like they were in one of the SVN versions? I thought it was really fun to play with them - it added a lot more action to world politics.

No, but you can re-enable it easily yourself with a simple XML edit - just open CIV4TechInfos.xml of the mod, find any tech you'd like to enable them and set <bDefensivePactTrading>1</bDefensivePactTrading> for it. And there you shall have them.

I noticed that once IFVs are unlocked, Paramilitary Forces (last of the irregulars line) and Modern Infantry (last standard/defensive infantry before IFVs) can't be made, or even upgraded to. (I made the unfortunate mistake of getting Globalization very late, so now all my old Conscripts can only be upgraded to the very expensive IFVs and highly specialized Anti-Tank Infantry.) This seems weird since IFVs and Modern Infantry are both unlocked at the same time. As for the Paramilitary Forces, the lack of an irregulars unit means there are no cheap units once you reach the very end of the tech tree. The "draft" button in the city screen is disabled with no tooltip because of this. Are these things intentional?

They are not intentional, but are kind of determined by the way Civ 4 engine works. If all of a unit's upgrades can be built, the unit itself won't. I see how that's inconvenient, so we'll try to put out a fix for that.
 
Sounds good, I will put those tribal forts in soon and wait for any update you might have on the raze city problem. I'll do some checking myself. It is good to have someone helping me out with this process, thanks!

Some further feedback on seeing your map in action:
1) Some of the civs aren't meant to play on regular terms. For instance, you placed Sibir, but it can't build settlers and researches at a reduced rate, so it just sits there with its one city. Generally speaking, I'd advise you to lose some civs and add some others. Lose: Sibir (not intended to compete on common terms with others), Venice (strange to have around as a separate civ, only serves to limit Rome's progress; makes more sense in a medieval setting), if you only want to have civs that can expand Netherlands and Portugal (though they work quite well as one-city civs), Mongols (they really should be much further to the East; I would probably just cut off more of Siberia with mountains, but I can see how having Mongols in makes for more fun).
2) Conversely, seeing how many free slots you still have, I'd say you're not bold enough adding other civs. For instance, our leader-specific name lists and lots of additional flags used in scenarios work rather well with creating several different civs out of one. We also have enough flags from other scenarios for such civs to use them. Examples I'd suggest considering (maybe not all at once, but some are definitely worth it): Scotland (another instance of Celtic civ, should use one of the Scottish leaders, Dravidian color as they're not on the map, and msc_flag_scotland.dds), Denmark (another instance of Scandinavian civ, should use Christian IV, Japan's color and fire and sword_flag_denmark.dds), maybe separate Viking civ in Norway (using Ragnar and msc_flag_viking.dds), Cilicia (Armenia, with Thoros as leader, Zulu (?) color and msc_flag_cilicia.dds as flag), Seljuks (Turks with Alp Arslan as leader, American color (generally since you have a lot of unused civs, scavenge their colors creatively) and msc_flag_seljuk.dds as flag), Greece proper (with Pericles, and Alexander becoming Macedon instead, seeing how Athens and Sparta are barbarian anyway right now), splitting Transoxiana into Timurids (led by Timur or Ulugh Beg) and Parthians led by Mithridates or Afghans led by Durrani (if you want to use Demetrius, Bactria is also a possibility, but it should start in a different place from now), maybe even separate Germany into Germany proper (led by someone else, like Otto) and Prussia (led by Frederick and using fire and sword_flag_brandenburg.dds, only a bit anarchonistic) or even create a separate starting Gaul faction for continental Celts with Vercingetorix (with Ireland getting celtic_ireland.dds and actually becoming Ireland), as well as splitting Berbers into Moroccans (where your current Berbers start) and Numidians (to the south of Carthage). I can even create some custom flags specifically for the ones you need (such as Macedonians) if you request them.
3) Some of the better developed unplayable civs could definitely find a home in this map, just like Finland did. Mughals (starting in Afghanistan or somewhat to the south), Austrians and Israel (though this last one is like Netherlands and Portugal in the sense of being a one-city civ) come to mind.
4) Since naturally some of the New World resources are absent from the map, one could simulate New World colonies and reward the first oceangoing civs by placing an American coast laden with resources across the Atlantic.
5) Placing barbarian cities on isolated islands is not recommended as this is what it leads to: https://imgur.com/a/LMqTW. Lots of pointless units, negative performance impact. I'd suggest pre-placing stronger barbarian units there instead (bear in mind that pre-placed units shouldn't necessarily match their civ, so Crete can have some barbarian Greeks roaming it, for instance).
6) To my mind, you don't really need so many barbarian cities. You should probably use them to funnel civs into expanding in historical directions, but you probably don't need so many, especially in more densely-populated areas of the map, such as Western Europe. But of course, this is again up to you. I wouldn't go crazy on barbarian forts, as suggested above, though - they are there in the world map scenarios to prevent early overexpansion (like Incas conquering all of South America), but your map doesn't have much of a problem with that, as it's pretty evenly populated.
 
Some further feedback on seeing your map in action:
1) Some of the civs aren't meant to play on regular terms. For instance, you placed Sibir, but it can't build settlers and researches at a reduced rate, so it just sits there with its one city. Generally speaking, I'd advise you to lose some civs and add some others. Lose: Sibir (not intended to compete on common terms with others), Venice (strange to have around as a separate civ, only serves to limit Rome's progress; makes more sense in a medieval setting), if you only want to have civs that can expand Netherlands and Portugal (though they work quite well as one-city civs), Mongols (they really should be much further to the East; I would probably just cut off more of Siberia with mountains, but I can see how having Mongols in makes for more fun).
2) Conversely, seeing how many free slots you still have, I'd say you're not bold enough adding other civs. For instance, our leader-specific name lists and lots of additional flags used in scenarios work rather well with creating several different civs out of one. We also have enough flags from other scenarios for such civs to use them. Examples I'd suggest considering (maybe not all at once, but some are definitely worth it): Scotland (another instance of Celtic civ, should use one of the Scottish leaders, Dravidian color as they're not on the map, and msc_flag_scotland.dds), Denmark (another instance of Scandinavian civ, should use Christian IV, Japan's color and fire and sword_flag_denmark.dds), maybe separate Viking civ in Norway (using Ragnar and msc_flag_viking.dds), Cilicia (Armenia, with Thoros as leader, Zulu (?) color and msc_flag_cilicia.dds as flag), Seljuks (Turks with Alp Arslan as leader, American color (generally since you have a lot of unused civs, scavenge their colors creatively) and msc_flag_seljuk.dds as flag), Greece proper (with Pericles, and Alexander becoming Macedon instead, seeing how Athens and Sparta are barbarian anyway right now), splitting Transoxiana into Timurids (led by Timur or Ulugh Beg) and Parthians led by Mithridates or Afghans led by Durrani (if you want to use Demetrius, Bactria is also a possibility, but it should start in a different place from now), maybe even separate Germany into Germany proper (led by someone else, like Otto) and Prussia (led by Frederick and using fire and sword_flag_brandenburg.dds, only a bit anarchonistic) or even create a separate starting Gaul faction for continental Celts with Vercingetorix (with Ireland getting celtic_ireland.dds and actually becoming Ireland), as well as splitting Berbers into Moroccans (where your current Berbers start) and Numidians (to the south of Carthage). I can even create some custom flags specifically for the ones you need (such as Macedonians) if you request them.
3) Some of the better developed unplayable civs could definitely find a home in this map, just like Finland did. Mughals (starting in Afghanistan or somewhat to the south), Austrians and Israel (though this last one is like Netherlands and Portugal in the sense of being a one-city civ) come to mind.
4) Since naturally some of the New World resources are absent from the map, one could simulate New World colonies and reward the first oceangoing civs by placing an American coast laden with resources across the Atlantic.
5) Placing barbarian cities on isolated islands is not recommended as this is what it leads to: https://imgur.com/a/LMqTW. Lots of pointless units, negative performance impact. I'd suggest pre-placing stronger barbarian units there instead (bear in mind that pre-placed units shouldn't necessarily match their civ, so Crete can have some barbarian Greeks roaming it, for instance).
6) To my mind, you don't really need so many barbarian cities. You should probably use them to funnel civs into expanding in historical directions, but you probably don't need so many, especially in more densely-populated areas of the map, such as Western Europe. But of course, this is again up to you. I wouldn't go crazy on barbarian forts, as suggested above, though - they are there in the world map scenarios to prevent early overexpansion (like Incas conquering all of South America), but your map doesn't have much of a problem with that, as it's pretty evenly populated.

I'll take all this advice into consideration, it is great to have this help from people more knowledgeable about RI than me. I'll try to get a version released that takes all this into account by the end of the week, thanks!
 
Some further feedback on seeing your map in action:
1) Some of the civs aren't meant to play on regular terms. For instance, you placed Sibir, but it can't build settlers and researches at a reduced rate, so it just sits there with its one city. Generally speaking, I'd advise you to lose some civs and add some others. Lose: Sibir (not intended to compete on common terms with others), Venice (strange to have around as a separate civ, only serves to limit Rome's progress; makes more sense in a medieval setting), if you only want to have civs that can expand Netherlands and Portugal (though they work quite well as one-city civs), Mongols (they really should be much further to the East; I would probably just cut off more of Siberia with mountains, but I can see how having Mongols in makes for more fun).
2) Conversely, seeing how many free slots you still have, I'd say you're not bold enough adding other civs. For instance, our leader-specific name lists and lots of additional flags used in scenarios work rather well with creating several different civs out of one. We also have enough flags from other scenarios for such civs to use them. Examples I'd suggest considering (maybe not all at once, but some are definitely worth it): Scotland (another instance of Celtic civ, should use one of the Scottish leaders, Dravidian color as they're not on the map, and msc_flag_scotland.dds), Denmark (another instance of Scandinavian civ, should use Christian IV, Japan's color and fire and sword_flag_denmark.dds), maybe separate Viking civ in Norway (using Ragnar and msc_flag_viking.dds), Cilicia (Armenia, with Thoros as leader, Zulu (?) color and msc_flag_cilicia.dds as flag), Seljuks (Turks with Alp Arslan as leader, American color (generally since you have a lot of unused civs, scavenge their colors creatively) and msc_flag_seljuk.dds as flag), Greece proper (with Pericles, and Alexander becoming Macedon instead, seeing how Athens and Sparta are barbarian anyway right now), splitting Transoxiana into Timurids (led by Timur or Ulugh Beg) and Parthians led by Mithridates or Afghans led by Durrani (if you want to use Demetrius, Bactria is also a possibility, but it should start in a different place from now), maybe even separate Germany into Germany proper (led by someone else, like Otto) and Prussia (led by Frederick and using fire and sword_flag_brandenburg.dds, only a bit anarchonistic) or even create a separate starting Gaul faction for continental Celts with Vercingetorix (with Ireland getting celtic_ireland.dds and actually becoming Ireland), as well as splitting Berbers into Moroccans (where your current Berbers start) and Numidians (to the south of Carthage). I can even create some custom flags specifically for the ones you need (such as Macedonians) if you request them.
3) Some of the better developed unplayable civs could definitely find a home in this map, just like Finland did. Mughals (starting in Afghanistan or somewhat to the south), Austrians and Israel (though this last one is like Netherlands and Portugal in the sense of being a one-city civ) come to mind.
4) Since naturally some of the New World resources are absent from the map, one could simulate New World colonies and reward the first oceangoing civs by placing an American coast laden with resources across the Atlantic.
5) Placing barbarian cities on isolated islands is not recommended as this is what it leads to: https://imgur.com/a/LMqTW. Lots of pointless units, negative performance impact. I'd suggest pre-placing stronger barbarian units there instead (bear in mind that pre-placed units shouldn't necessarily match their civ, so Crete can have some barbarian Greeks roaming it, for instance).
6) To my mind, you don't really need so many barbarian cities. You should probably use them to funnel civs into expanding in historical directions, but you probably don't need so many, especially in more densely-populated areas of the map, such as Western Europe. But of course, this is again up to you. I wouldn't go crazy on barbarian forts, as suggested above, though - they are there in the world map scenarios to prevent early overexpansion (like Incas conquering all of South America), but your map doesn't have much of a problem with that, as it's pretty evenly populated.

I am confused about how I can know the info for the civilizations/leaders. In the CIVBTSWBSAVE file that has the team and player info, I don't know what to put into LeaderType and CivType to get certain civilizations/leaders such as Afghanistan, Timurids, Austrians, Israelites, etc. Is there any relatively simple way to get that information? Typically I would set up a custom game with the desired civilizations/leaders, save in WorldBuilder, then copy and paste the team/player info from that file to the desired map. But many civs/leaders are not playable and the only way I can think to get their data is trial and error..
 
I am confused about how I can know the info for the civilizations/leaders. In the CIVBTSWBSAVE file that has the team and player info, I don't know what to put into LeaderType and CivType to get certain civilizations/leaders such as Afghanistan, Timurids, Austrians, Israelites, etc. Is there any relatively simple way to get that information? Typically I would set up a custom game with the desired civilizations/leaders, save in WorldBuilder, then copy and paste the team/player info from that file to the desired map. But many civs/leaders are not playable and the only way I can think to get their data is trial and error..
You can find entries for all civs and leaders in the corresponding XML files.
The non-playable civs are in these files: Assets/XML/Civilizations/OtherCivs_CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml and Assets/XML/Civilizations/Derivative_CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml
(leaders can be found in the end of each civilization entry, for example)
 
Cant complete Harbormaster quest as Russia. Needs 5 harbors - I have 7, and needs also 5 Caravels - I have 6 Karakka. Cant even add Caravels in WB unless there is some workaround
 
Cant complete Harbormaster quest as Russia. Needs 5 harbors - I have 7, and needs also 5 Caravels - I have 6 Karakka. Cant even add Caravels in WB unless there is some workaround

If you're using 3.4 (and my guess you are, due to "Cant even add Caravels in WB"), the quest should work fine, at least from what I saw in the code. Could it be that someone just completed the requirement before you?

And yeah, you totally can add any unit in WB, as long as you turn off "Hide Inactive" there (a button with red skull and green swirlies). Just commented about it on the previous page.
 
Cant complete Harbormaster quest as Russia. Needs 5 harbors - I have 7, and needs also 5 Caravels - I have 6 Karakka. Cant even add Caravels in WB unless there is some workaround
If you're using 3.4 (and my guess you are, due to "Cant even add Caravels in WB"), the quest should work fine, at least from what I saw in the code. Could it be that someone just completed the requirement before you?

And yeah, you totally can add any unit in WB, as long as you turn off "Hide Inactive" there (a button with red skull and green swirlies). Just commented about it on the previous page.
Actually I also experienced this (playing a testgame in the last few days), there are definitely some issues with the Harbormaster quest.
You are right too, I also checked the code, and there are no obvious issues there. Something unexpected is happening in the background with the quest trigger, wasn't able to find it so far.
 
I was first to research tech for building Karakka and spammed them. If anyone else completed quest it should disappear or am I wrong?

You can look for reward in files for me I will try to cheat them in for myself in WB xD

Also wanted to ask. I had so far quest for stables which I completed and this is second one. There was also events upgrading certain units or buldings before, maybe I am just not lucky enough in this game. Is there a way to edit files to have increased ammount of events and quests in new game? I am going to win this one too beacause its blast of fun, only asking for new game after

Edit : Cheating caravels in did not help to trigger quest so bug must be hidden somewhere else
 
Last edited:
I have taken the advice given by Bakou and Walter into account and updated the map, here is the 3.0 version. I got rid of Bactria and put in Timurids (Samarkand) and Afghans (Kandahar). I also added and removed resources/bonuses for balance/gameplay purposes, hopefully it is in a decent state at this time. Lately I have been having trouble saving the worldbuilder file, it only saves an incomplete version of the file (usually 337-338KB) that is useless. Thankfully the WB autosave was not corrupted so I was able to simply rename that to RI Europe 3.0. Here is the attached file, I have also updated by earlier post to include it, as well as including it in a new version of my Europe & Eurasia zip file which is accessible via my signature. Hope y'all enjoy! Feel free to provide any additional feedback.

Edit: 4.0 released
 

Attachments

  • Europe - REALISM INVICTUS 3.0.CivBeyondSwordWBSave
    1.2 MB · Views: 78
  • Europe - REALISM INVICTUS 4.0.CivBeyondSwordWBSave
    1.2 MB · Views: 81
Last edited:
I have taken the advice given by Bakou and Walter into account and updated the map, here is the 3.0 version. I got rid of Bactria and put in Timurids (Samarkand) and Afghans (Kandahar). I also added and removed resources/bonuses for balance/gameplay purposes, hopefully it is in a decent state at this time. Lately I have been having trouble saving the worldbuilder file, it only saves an incomplete version of the file (usually 337-338KB) that is useless. Thankfully the WB autosave was not corrupted so I was able to simply rename that to RI Europe 3.0. Here is the attached file, I have also updated by earlier post to include it, as well as including it in a new version of my Europe & Eurasia zip file which is accessible via my signature. Hope y'all enjoy! Feel free to provide any additional feedback.

Hi NiRv4n4,
Thank you for this very nice Europe map ! I tried it as Armenia first, where I got wiped out quite early several times (too many enemies) and succeded quit well as Germany. But I just wanted to let you know that I found two isolited tiles with railways on them south of the armenian starting position. They should be an artefact of the map building, I guess ... Carry on :goodjob: !
 
I have taken the advice given by Bakou and Walter into account and updated the map, here is the 3.0 version. I got rid of Bactria and put in Timurids (Samarkand) and Afghans (Kandahar). I also added and removed resources/bonuses for balance/gameplay purposes, hopefully it is in a decent state at this time. Lately I have been having trouble saving the worldbuilder file, it only saves an incomplete version of the file (usually 337-338KB) that is useless. Thankfully the WB autosave was not corrupted so I was able to simply rename that to RI Europe 3.0. Here is the attached file, I have also updated by earlier post to include it, as well as including it in a new version of my Europe & Eurasia zip file which is accessible via my signature. Hope y'all enjoy! Feel free to provide any additional feedback.

Good job! This is definitely a step in the right direction. Wanted you to know that you can check the city name lists for particular leaders inside the DynamicCityNaming.py file, if you're planning on adding other civ variants I suggested besides Transoxiana. And you can browse the available flags in Art/Interface/Teamcolor to pick and choose the once you want to use. There's a lot of them from other scenarios.

Also, as a smaller aside point, I'd say that the Dutch civ flag looks better with WhiteFlag=0 (it works OK with it set to both 1 and 0, but 0 makes it looks better IMO).

To add to my previous suggestions, I'd probably use tundra in the map to represent the higher altitudes, not only actual tundra. For instance, the Caucasus is currently probably more hospitable than it should realistically be, as the climate of Armenia proper IRL is rather severe. So I'd suggest adding some tundra provinces around major mountain systems.
 
Thanks for posting - I have eliminated it as well. :goodjob:

What's even better is that returning <iInstanceCostModifier> to default (0) it does not screw up with original unit upgrade costs, which is very nice.

I must be in the tiny minority who does not mind large number of units, and thinks of it as Civ feature, not a bug. Also it gives technologically advanced AI some leverage of actually posing a threat. I only need stack management features (mostly there, especially in this mod) not stack removal.

Coming back on board, never managed to resolve that 2GB bug on main PC after transition from Win7 to Win10 *I know, why would anyone upgrade to Win10, I did, but would not do it again*

However got a new laptop, installed Civ IV, RI, 3.4, removed unit cost increases and ready to roll. :)
 
I went ahead and made WhiteFlag=1 into WhiteFlag=0 for all civilizations, I hope that will make them less weird. I realize now that that has nothing to do with gameplay and is basically like how sports teams have two colors they can wear just in case their opponents have a similar color?

Here is the most recent version of the file, as well as a screenshot of the map showing the civilizations and their starting locations. I added more tundra in the Caucasus, Carpathian, and Pamir mountains. I have been doing a lot of updates and testing for the past month or so, I think now is a good time to take a break from Civ 4. I'll check back periodically and be sure to address any urgent issues, but for now consider the 4.0 release to be "complete".

Edit: thanks to Goetz for reminding me of some wayward roads in the map, they are cleaned up in this version now.
 

Attachments

  • RI-EUROPE.png
    RI-EUROPE.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 222
  • Europe - REALISM INVICTUS 4.0.CivBeyondSwordWBSave
    1.2 MB · Views: 95
Last edited:
Top Bottom